PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN from UK Parking Management
Merlin5
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 10:55
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



A parking charge notice was received yesterday (25th June) from a company called CPM. Car was parked for a few minutes in front of offices (closed after 6.30pm). Here's the ticket. Can anything be done or is it all cut and dried? No-one wants to give these thieves £60 let alone £100. rolleyes.gif

Many thanks for any help, chaps. smile.gif

Click thumbnails to enlarge.



This post has been edited by Merlin5: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 10:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 10:55
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 15:42
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Unfortunately, although the NTK doesn't strictly conform, I don't think it is too far from what is required.

The only contention is the phrase "Unauthorised Parking". What did the signs say?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 21:37
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 15:42) *
Unfortunately, although the NTK doesn't strictly conform, I don't think it is too far from what is required.

The only contention is the phrase "Unauthorised Parking". What did the signs say?


I'll drive there tomorrow and have a read, I can't remember what they said.

What's this sentence about:

"The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period that immediately preceded the incident date and time above." Maybe I'm misunderstanding but the ticket says incident time was 20:18, so what are they talking about?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 21:40
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



A photo of the sign would help

POFA 9 (2) (a) requires a period of parking to be stated. Saying the preceding time is not a period of parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Sat, 27 Jun 2020 - 16:34
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



Here's the signs, guys.



Close up


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 27 Jun 2020 - 17:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



This any help?

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 12:09
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 27 Jun 2020 - 17:22) *
This any help?

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.


Thanks ostell, much appreciated. If I can use what you said to help cancel the pcn, I of course will. But on the sign, it says all cars must be registered with a valid pre-authorised UK CPM e-permit at all times, and there's a blue phone keypad icon next to it with their phone number below.
Isn't that their offer of an invitation to park there since they're saying to phone them? And that otherwise, any car is not allowed to park there hence the sign 'no unauthorised parking'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 12:23
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The major sign is the no unauthorised parking, with no offer of parking for unauthorised. Without an offer of a contract you can't breach it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 18:31
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 12:23) *
The major sign is the no unauthorised parking, with no offer of parking for unauthorised. Without an offer of a contract you can't breach it.


Ok, shall I copy exactly what you wrote in your 3rd post from the top as my appeal wording,
"The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner."


and do I need to add anything to it such as "and therefore this PCN must be cancelled" ?

By the way, what does 'you can't breach it' mean?
And by sending the appeal within the 14 day reduced amount period, does the £60 reduced penalty remain should they not reply to me until after the 14 days?

This post has been edited by Merlin5: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 18:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 19:16
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The NTK is an invoice for a payment agreed if the driver breaches the conditions agreed to in the contract. If there is no contract then there can be no breach of contract.

I would work on the basis of the sign "No Unauthorised Parking"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 20:06
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 19:16) *
The NTK is an invoice for a payment agreed if the driver breaches the conditions agreed to in the contract. If there is no contract then there can be no breach of contract.

I would work on the basis of the sign "No Unauthorised Parking"


I'm afraid I don't know how to word an appeal other than copy exactly what you wrote in your 3rd post. So I guess I'll just send that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 20:55
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Have a read of other threads to see what is normally required
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 13:46
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



How's this ostell, any good? smile.gif I've taken what you said and added my own bits.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle registration  xxxx

The signage in the car park on the notice to keeper is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

The major sign in that car park is the one that reads 'no unauthorised parking' but with no offer of parking and therefore no possible contract for unauthorised cars.

Your Notice to Keeper is an invoice for a payment agreed if the driver breaches the conditions of the contract. But since there is no contract agreed as mentioned before, then the keeper could not have breached it.

Because of this,  I see no reason for this penalty to be paid and ask that you cancel this Notice to Keeper forthwith.


Yours sincerely,


Should I post it to that customer services address at the bottom of the second page? In the event of them turning down the appeal, hopefully we can take it further. But do they normally still allow the reduced payment even if they reply after the 14th day since the ntk was issued?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 14:01
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Penultimate paragraph "the KEEPER could not have breached"

Last paragraph. It is NOT a penalty use UNFOUNDED CHARGE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 15:57
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 14:01) *
Penultimate paragraph "the KEEPER could not have breached"

Last paragraph. It is NOT a penalty use UNFOUNDED CHARGE



Ah ok, so like this,

"Your Notice to Keeper is an invoice for a payment agreed if the driver breaches the conditions of the contract. But since there is no contract agreed as mentioned before, then the keeper could not have breached.

Because of this, I see no reason for this unfounded charge to be paid and ask that you cancel this Notice to Keeper forthwith.


Yours sincerely,


That's all good to send?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 16:22
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Sorry I think I confused you, and myself.

"the Driver could not have breached it"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 16:33
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



No problem. So here it is,

"Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle registration xxxx

The signage in the car park on the notice to keeper is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

The major sign in that car park is the one that reads 'no unauthorised parking' but with no offer of parking and therefore no possible contract for unauthorised cars.

Your Notice to Keeper is an invoice for a payment agreed if the driver breaches the conditions of the contract. But since there is no contract agreed as mentioned before, then the driver could not have breached.

Because of this, I see no reason for this unfounded charge to be paid and ask that you cancel this Notice to Keeper forthwith.


Yours sincerely,"



Also, should I be adding this bit : "POFA 9 (2) (a) requires a period of parking to be stated and no such period was stated. Therefore saying the preceding time is not a period of parking."

This post has been edited by Merlin5: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 16:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 20:39
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



you don't "ask" them to cancel the notice, you "require" them. They'll ignore you either way, but in the "require" case you aren't giving them an excuse to say no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlin5
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 21:42
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,632



QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 20:39) *
you don't "ask" them to cancel the notice, you "require" them. They'll ignore you either way, but in the "require" case you aren't giving them an excuse to say no.



Thanks, I've changed that. Yes, I'm sure they'll ignore it. You think the fine will have to be paid then? If so, will it still be the reduced £60 if they don't reply before the 14 days is up?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 09:59
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



IT IS NOT A FINE!
Who said anything about paying it? Anyone bar you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:25
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here